EPTOneGoal: A better SC2 [Project Hub] - Page 28
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
Baozi
United States1191 Posts
You're free to be your own judge of the mod, but if you present your opinion in a hostile manner, you will be received in kind. Your comments have served only to derail the thread. If you are still keen on expressing your thoughts on this subject, please take it elsewhere. | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
| ||
|
MWY
Germany284 Posts
| ||
|
macncheezeplz
United States93 Posts
As far as the legitimacy of this Mod, I have to say I see this as a platform to present clean realistic ideas to the community and to Blizzard, nothing more. | ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
| ||
|
Seiniyta
Belgium1815 Posts
I do like the voidray attack but I'm wondering about how useful it is as the voidray kind of needs to be stationary to do the splash. I think for now I prefer the HoTS voidray over the OneGoal one. Though again, I only played a single game of it vs the computer. edit: as for ideas. I'd like the sentry back at the warpgate with forcefield but which functions a little bit different. The sentry's model is increased a bit and around the sentry the forcefield appears which shields the sentry from any harm. It makes positioning of the sentry more important. the forecefield spell costs 25 energy to use and drains 2 energy per second. (no energy, no forcefield anymore). | ||
|
MWY
Germany284 Posts
On January 15 2013 19:22 Seiniyta wrote: I toyed around with it a few days ago, (some thigns might be off/already changed) and there are a few things my brain finds just 'wrong'. The size of the inmortal. They don't look as cool anymore now they're smaller. They're like little toys now >.>. I do like the voidray attack but I'm wondering about how useful it is as the voidray kind of needs to be stationary to do the splash. I think for now I prefer the HoTS voidray over the OneGoal one. Though again, I only played a single game of it vs the computer. edit: as for ideas. I'd like the sentry back at the warpgate with forcefield but which functions a little bit different. The sentry's model is increased a bit and around the sentry the forcefield appears which shields the sentry from any harm. It makes positioning of the sentry more important. the forecefield spell costs 25 energy to use and drains 2 energy per second. (no energy, no forcefield anymore). Also also played some games yesterday, since FINALLY OneGoal is on EU Arcade  . I was also wondering about the Void Ray, but I think it's important for defensive purposes (so you dont get overrun when opening air) and also for slow, methodical pushes. So I think it might be really interesting to use, besides that you can't really harrass with it anymore. Sadly you can't really play vs the computer though, since it obivously doesn't know the new mechanics, units, strategies, etc. Your idea for the sentry would be nice to defend (vs zerg), but pretty much useless for everything else? With the speed of the sentry you will almost never be able to trap any units. Especially versus terrans and protoss (early on) I think offensive forcefields can be really important. Besides, positioning of your sentries already is pretty important if you don't want to get them sniped extremely fast. | ||
|
Tracil
Australia505 Posts
I'm really liking how Terran feels, though. Widow mines are such a troll unit, and them at 1 supply + tanks at 2 supply pretty much save mech. I could play like this almost every game~ | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On January 15 2013 17:09 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: I am actually intrigued as to why you think One Goal is bad. Have you played it, did stuff feel off? This is stuff we want to know. I personally think you're doing far, far too much at once and trying to fundamentally change a lot of things that don't really need changing. You aren't really going to make a difference in the long run if you just go "right, everything is shit, let's start over". Blizzard won't be receptive to that. Your ultimate aim is to improve the main game, right? However, if you make small, iterative changes that aren't based on rhetoric (forget the "THIS IS HOW PROTOSS IS MEANT TO BE" speech and focus on just improving the game) then Blizzard are more likely to take a community PTR seriously. As it is, it's just another This Is My Resume To Redesign Someone Elses Game Mod. Take the stated goal of OneGoal more seriously. You call this a community PTR so make it a community PTR. Test one or two changes at a time with a stated goal for two weeks with a focused effort on testing just those changes to see how the metagame evolves. Produce a communal report with replays of those games and submit them to Blizzard directly. They will be receptive if they are proven wrong with empirical evidence. Pick a unit or two and change those and see how it works. Don't just redesign everything. There are some good ideas in this mod (and some pretty bad ones, but mostly good). Blizzard aren't omniscient, so you can easily improve SC2 provided you make the case in the right way. Blizzard are not going to redesign Starcraft 2 into the fantasies of a group of people that can't even fill a thread on TeamLiquid after several months. They will iterate, however, if given proper evidence to do so. An example is Fungal. I have an idea for Fungal based on their current use of the Raven but I don't have any way of suggesting it directly to Blizzard. So take ideas one at a time and see how they improve the metagame with focused testing. For the record, I will happily help produce said report and test extensively if this is the route you do decide to go in the long run. I am all for improvements to Starcraft 2, but I think it needs to be a much more controlled process than is currently ongoing and based on current beta builds. It's also important to test bad ideas, so Blizzard know not to go to them! | ||
Nyvis
France284 Posts
| ||
|
Phoobie
Canada120 Posts
On January 15 2013 21:30 Evangelist wrote: I personally think you're doing far, far too much at once and trying to fundamentally change a lot of things that don't really need changing. You aren't really going to make a difference in the long run if you just go "right, everything is shit, let's start over". Blizzard won't be receptive to that. Your ultimate aim is to improve the main game, right? However, if you make small, iterative changes that aren't based on rhetoric (forget the "THIS IS HOW PROTOSS IS MEANT TO BE" speech and focus on just improving the game) then Blizzard are more likely to take a community PTR seriously. As it is, it's just another This Is My Resume To Redesign Someone Elses Game Mod. Take the stated goal of OneGoal more seriously. You call this a community PTR so make it a community PTR. Test one or two changes at a time with a stated goal for two weeks with a focused effort on testing just those changes to see how the metagame evolves. Produce a communal report with replays of those games and submit them to Blizzard directly. They will be receptive if they are proven wrong with empirical evidence. Pick a unit or two and change those and see how it works. Don't just redesign everything. There are some good ideas in this mod (and some pretty bad ones, but mostly good). Blizzard aren't omniscient, so you can easily improve SC2 provided you make the case in the right way. Blizzard are not going to redesign Starcraft 2 into the fantasies of a group of people that can't even fill a thread on TeamLiquid after several months. They will iterate, however, if given proper evidence to do so. An example is Fungal. I have an idea for Fungal based on their current use of the Raven but I don't have any way of suggesting it directly to Blizzard. So take ideas one at a time and see how they improve the metagame with focused testing. For the record, I will happily help produce said report and test extensively if this is the route you do decide to go in the long run. I am all for improvements to Starcraft 2, but I think it needs to be a much more controlled process than is currently ongoing and based on current beta builds. It's also important to test bad ideas, so Blizzard know not to go to them! I don't entirely think it's too much for now. One Goal wants to promote dynamic and fun gameplay for the user while also offering good counter play from the opponent. They have taken each and every unit and made changes that promote their goal. in time I'm sure we'll see what works and what doesn't and can push further or pull back some of the changes and then show blizzard how we can make SC2 better. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
That's what happens when someone goes into a mod trying to design their own game. Starbow is a mess for the same reason. If you really want to give interesting ideas to Blizzard then you do them in the context of the original game! Yes, by all means, try out fascinating ideas but if you change the metagame completely, you're not showing anything. You're just showing how a bunch of changes that are thrown together look when they are thrown together with no clear design ethos. The whole methodology is wrong. The argumentation is wrong - you're making the point to the wrong people. No one cares what TeamLiquid plebs think about these changes. I certainly don't and Blizzard have to wade through nine hundred pages of "FUCK U DUSTIN LOLDER" to get there. One or two extensive changes at a time, extensively tested, will be a much more convincing argument for design change than fifty half baked ideas all thrown together. Take the Colossus idea that has been thrown around. I personally like how the Colossus works here. Imagine how awesome that would be if we had the community testing that change in a vacuum and then submitted it, directly to Blizzard. We could actually improve a boring unit and make it interesting Or the tank changes. Make the siege tank 2 supply and just see what happens. Without a focused aim you are not going to have the effect you want. | ||
|
Nyvis
France284 Posts
On January 15 2013 22:39 Evangelist wrote: No, you're not showing how Blizzard can make SC2 better because the game isn't based on SC2 at all. It's based on some wierd pastiche of BW, a bit of DoTA (Battlecruiser aura pretty much defines "deathball") and maybe a tiny bit of SC2. That's what happens when someone goes into a mod trying to design their own game. Starbow is a mess for the same reason. If you really want to give interesting ideas to Blizzard then you do them in the context of the original game! Yes, by all means, try out fascinating ideas but if you change the metagame completely, you're not showing anything. You're just showing how a bunch of changes that are thrown together look when they are thrown together with no clear design ethos. The whole methodology is wrong. The argumentation is wrong - you're making the point to the wrong people. No one cares what TeamLiquid plebs think about these changes. I certainly don't and Blizzard have to wade through nine hundred pages of "FUCK U DUSTIN LOLDER" to get there. One or two extensive changes at a time, extensively tested, will be a much more convincing argument for design change than fifty half baked ideas all thrown together. Take the Colossus idea that has been thrown around. I personally like how the Colossus works here. Imagine how awesome that would be if we had the community testing that change in a vacuum and then submitted it, directly to Blizzard. We could actually improve a boring unit and make it interesting Or the tank changes. Make the siege tank 2 supply and just see what happens. Without a focused aim you are not going to have the effect you want. I think you're making a huge mix of all the "improve SC2" mods. Onegoal is the one further away from BW, with more thinking on why BW had a better gameplay. The only thing taken from it is that the game battles are too fast and too deathball oriented, making them boring to watch. I don't agree with most of your concerns about it being tested and discussed here. But I think you're right on the methodology, we could use more incremental changes and test them. It will make finding people to playtest it harder, though. | ||
|
Seiniyta
Belgium1815 Posts
On January 15 2013 19:48 MWY wrote: Also also played some games yesterday, since FINALLY OneGoal is on EU Arcade . I was also wondering about the Void Ray, but I think it's important for defensive purposes (so you dont get overrun when opening air) and also for slow, methodical pushes. So I think it might be really interesting to use, besides that you can't really harrass with it anymore. Sadly you can't really play vs the computer though, since it obivously doesn't know the new mechanics, units, strategies, etc. Your idea for the sentry would be nice to defend (vs zerg), but pretty much useless for everything else? With the speed of the sentry you will almost never be able to trap any units. Especially versus terrans and protoss (early on) I think offensive forcefields can be really important. Besides, positioning of your sentries already is pretty important if you don't want to get them sniped extremely fast. The speed of the sentry can be adjusted of course. I mean, its orb shaped.. it should be able to go around pretty fast no?  Or perhaps make forcefield like it is now. But after a few seconds you can go through the forecefield at like 80% slow until it's 0% slow and the forecefield vanishes. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
However I just had to comment on your post: On January 15 2013 22:39 Evangelist wrote: No, you're not showing how Blizzard can make SC2 better because the game isn't based on SC2 at all. It's based on some wierd pastiche of BW, a bit of DoTA (Battlecruiser aura pretty much defines "deathball") and maybe a tiny bit of SC2. That's what happens when someone goes into a mod trying to design their own game. Starbow is a mess for the same reason. If you really want to give interesting ideas to Blizzard then you do them in the context of the original game! Yes, by all means, try out fascinating ideas but if you change the metagame completely, you're not showing anything. You're just showing how a bunch of changes that are thrown together look when they are thrown together with no clear design ethos. The whole methodology is wrong. The argumentation is wrong - you're making the point to the wrong people. No one cares what TeamLiquid plebs think about these changes. I certainly don't and Blizzard have to wade through nine hundred pages of "FUCK U DUSTIN LOLDER" to get there. One or two extensive changes at a time, extensively tested, will be a much more convincing argument for design change than fifty half baked ideas all thrown together. Take the Colossus idea that has been thrown around. I personally like how the Colossus works here. Imagine how awesome that would be if we had the community testing that change in a vacuum and then submitted it, directly to Blizzard. We could actually improve a boring unit and make it interesting Or the tank changes. Make the siege tank 2 supply and just see what happens. Without a focused aim you are not going to have the effect you want. I agree with what you are saying. Most of the ideas on their own simply won't work outside of OneGoal. Therefore, there is hardly anything to learn from this for SC2. Like, how do you guys want to do the whole Stalker/Immortal/Sentry/Warpgate change in SC2? You have to do it all in one. And then you will still face the problem that Zerg does not have T1 hydras. So you need to change that as well and so on. So even in the (let's be honest, quite unlikely) case that OneGoal finds a meaningfully big playerbase with a stable metagame, what can blizzard really do with the "results"? Their 3 options would be 1) turn SC2 into OneGoal 2) take the very few changes that are independend from the enviroment (like Evangelist said, something like a Colossus improvement which doesn't alter the role of the Colossus; maybe a BC tweak or a more interesting Nuke) 3) discard any OneGoal result Case 1) is off the table for as long as the whole community doesn't switch completly into OneGoal. Case 3) is not what OneGoal is aiming for. Basically Case 2) is the only positive outcome. So like Evangelist said: If your goal is to be a PTR, you should aim for small changes. That doesn't mean that OneGoal can't be a cool game/Mod on its own. Just like Starbow is quite cool. + Show Spoiler + I really disagree with you on this. I don't think Starbow is a mess. It's a game on its own with its own rules. That's one of the parts I like so much about it. It just takes good Starcraft ideas but it does not claim to be Starcraft. | ||
|
Mr. Black
United States470 Posts
At the very least, by attempting to make vast and sweeping design changes and still maintain some Starcraft identity, the people involved in the project can experience the difficulties that Blizzard deals with. | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
On January 15 2013 22:39 Evangelist wrote: No, you're not showing how Blizzard can make SC2 better because the game isn't based on SC2 at all. It's based on some wierd pastiche of BW, a bit of DoTA (Battlecruiser aura pretty much defines "deathball") and maybe a tiny bit of SC2. That's what happens when someone goes into a mod trying to design their own game. Starbow is a mess for the same reason. If you really want to give interesting ideas to Blizzard then you do them in the context of the original game! Yes, by all means, try out fascinating ideas but if you change the metagame completely, you're not showing anything. You're just showing how a bunch of changes that are thrown together look when they are thrown together with no clear design ethos. The whole methodology is wrong. The argumentation is wrong - you're making the point to the wrong people. No one cares what TeamLiquid plebs think about these changes. I certainly don't and Blizzard have to wade through nine hundred pages of "FUCK U DUSTIN LOLDER" to get there. One or two extensive changes at a time, extensively tested, will be a much more convincing argument for design change than fifty half baked ideas all thrown together. Take the Colossus idea that has been thrown around. I personally like how the Colossus works here. Imagine how awesome that would be if we had the community testing that change in a vacuum and then submitted it, directly to Blizzard. We could actually improve a boring unit and make it interesting Or the tank changes. Make the siege tank 2 supply and just see what happens. Without a focused aim you are not going to have the effect you want. First on testing methodology: You are right. The best ideal way for One Goal to work is via small changes with weeks of testing in between them. Unfortunately, the team, Blizzard, and the esport scene don't necessarily have that luxury. It sounds pretty extreme to say. But lets look at the damage that poor dynamics can do to the game over the course of six months. Look at the damage that Vortex, Fungal Growth, and Infested Terran all did to viewership. Dyanamics that I would argue are just as toxic still exist in HotS and Blizzard has no intention of changing them. Force Fields, No defenders advantage against Toss, reliance on deathballs, worthless units like the Hydra, Thor ect ect. The list goes on. These are things that will hold the game back unless they are adressed. And believe me, Riot will not give any quarter with regards to esports, every season they agressively revise their game, completely redesigning problematic champions and items. Guess what, they screw with the meta a fair bit and they are the most watched and played esport in the world. I can't speak for the rest of the team or community, but I want SC2 to have something resembling that clout. Simply put, I don't think SC2's current design can get it there. What separates One Goal from other mods is that we don't look to brood war units for answers. BW is a great set of dynamics to look at and learn from, as well as a basic set of guideline sfor what feels "starcraft." Currently, there are things in One Goal that probably don't belong in Starcraft, which is why they will change or we will remove them. For example, we are removing Behemoth Conduits next patch for an ability that feels more appropriate and is less deathball oriented. One Goal has been out for 2 months. Give us some time to sort our stuff out, We make mistakes like any other design team. | ||
| ||
